Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove pass in skip_unwinder_tests

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 08/24/2012 05:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 05:18 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:40:55 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> Nothing actually FAILed here.  We have lots of precedent for "supports-foo" or
>>> "try this" style functions that issue no FAIL.
>>
>> There are cases which one can be sure they never can fail.  But otherwise
>> I find it as a testsuitea bug.
>>
>>
>>> It is expected that
>>> some systems won't have the unwinder hooks.  In the absurd, issuing a FAIL for
>>> these cases would be like issuing FAILs when tests are skipped because
>>> a [istarget "foobar-*-*"] returns false.
>>
>> If the system does not have unwinder hook it will XFAIL.  XFAIL is not even
>> displayed on screen during interactive run.
> 

(last minute editing made me lose a bit here)  For completeness:

> That's not what an XFAIL is for.  XFAIL is when you do
> "print 2+2", you expect "4" to come out, but you know that on
> some broken systems instead "5" comes out, so you XFAIL on those systems,

"some system with broken system libraries or kernel, or some such".  If it
were a GDB bug that only triggers on some systems, but still a GDB bug, it
would be a KFAIL.

> as in, to fix that _wrong result_, you need to fix something else, not GDB,
> but there _is_ something broken that should be fixed.
-- 
Pedro Alves